CHAPTER 1 



POLICY OBJECTIVES 



To achieve change is difficult; however, that 

 does not mean it should not be attempted. 

 But to attempt change . . . vi^thout a policy 

 . . . is to plow the sea. 



NATIVE BROTHERHOOD OF BRITISH COLUMBIA' 



We begin with a paradox. We have some of the world's 

 most valuable fish resources, they are capable of yielding 

 great economic and social benefits; yet many commercial 

 fishermen and fishing companies are near bankruptcy, 

 sport fishermen and Indians are preoccupied with declin- 

 ing opportunities to fish, and the fisheries are a heavy 

 burden on Canadian taxpayers. 



The problems now facing the Pacific fisheries are 

 numerous, grave and very complicated. They include 

 overfishing, conflicts among users, overexpansion of the 

 fishing fleets, and eroding marine and freshwater habitat. 

 As one group put it at the public hearings, "The problems 

 in the industry boggle the mind. On every hand there is a 

 crisis and a fundamental problem that must be solved."* 

 And words like "dilemma," "predicament" and "chaos" 

 were commonly used. 



Major and fundamental changes in fisheries policy are 

 needed to correct this situation and to achieve the policy 

 objective stated in this Commission's terms of reference 

 of ensuring "that fish resources and their use make the 

 highest possible contribution to the economic and social 

 development of the people of Canada." 



The Need for Policy Reform 



In the course of this inquiry I have been offered an 

 astonishing variety of explanations for the problems that 

 afflict the fisheries, ranging from avaricious fishermen to 

 abusers of the habitat, natural predators and incompetent 

 managers. Some support, at least, can be found for all of 

 these. But my inquiry pointed inescapably to deficiencies 

 of government policy: uncertain objectives, weak and 

 outdated legislation, bad organization, contradictory pro- 

 grams and confusion. The cost of this disarray has been 

 staggering. I emphasize this at the outset not to cast 

 blame but rather to explain the context of what follows. 



The deficiencies in policy arise primarily from three 

 sources: history, regional differences, and rapid change 

 which has overtaken the government's rate of response. 



The present complex regulations, which govern virtu- 

 ally every fishing activity, have resulted from a long suc- 

 cession of governmental responses to particular problems 

 at particular times. As a result, regardless of the effective- 

 ness of the individual measures in serving their intended 

 purposes, the policies are neither coherent nor well suited 

 to modem needs. 



Related difficulties have arisen from the necessity of 

 adapting national fisheries policy to suit widely differing 

 regional conditions. Much of the legislation and adminis- 

 trative structures have been designed to meet the needs of 

 the Atlantic, the Great Lakes, and other inland and 

 northern fisheries. The resources, patterns of utilization, 

 economic, social and political circumstances of these 

 areas are different from those of the Pacific. Thus, the 

 regulatory arrangements and administrative structures 

 are often unsuitable for the west coast. Moreover, Parlia- 

 ment, ministers and federal public servants must divide 

 their attention among the various regions and weigh the 

 needs of the Pacific fisheries against those of other 

 regions. 



This is not to say that the Department of Fisheries and 

 Oceans has been unresponsive to the problems of Pacific 

 fisheries. Indeed, the last dozen years have seen remark- 

 able changes in their regulation and management. But 

 these innovations have taken place in a piecemeal fashion 

 without a clearly articulated policy objective to guide 

 them. The result has been unpredictable and inconsistent 

 regulation. 



The lack of cohesive, consistent and forward-looking 

 policies and programs with respect to fisheries manage- 

 ment, enhancement and environmental protection is the 

 single most important criticism of the Department of 

 Fisheries and Oceans' activities on the Pacific coast. Par- 

 ticipants in the Commission's hearings repeatedly charac- 

 terized the Department's policies as being passive or 

 reactive rather than purposeful: 



The present fisheries management system on 

 the Pacific Coast can best be described as 

 reactive; that is, it functions primarily with- 

 out a planning philosophy and is subject to 

 the planning strategies of other, often com- 

 peting, resource sectors and fishing interests. 

 Thus, priorities for traditional fisheries man- 

 agement activities (enforcement, regulation, 

 habitat protection, etc.) are usually set by the 

 activities that triggered the reaction in the 

 first place and not through deliberate or 

 active fisheries management goals or plan- 

 ning. It is obvious to us that fisheries manage- 



